Skip to main content

About your Search

20120926
20121004
STATION
CSPAN2 69
LANGUAGE
English 69
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 69
laws and you've advocated for that as well. >> changing the? >> drug laws. the >> has come since 1989 of advocated legalizing marijuana, controller cannot regulate, tax it. we had a tipping point with regard to marijuana and legalizing it. i think that colorado is going to do that. it's on the ballot in colorado this november, regulate marijuana like alcohol. i think it is going to pass. when it passes and if it doesn't pass the colorado come is going to pass the 50% of americans now say they support the motion. it is a growing number. it's a growing number because people are talking about the issue more than they ever have before, recognizing 90% of the drug problem is prohibition repeated, not use related. that is not to discount the problems of use and abuse, but that should be the focus. i think when we legalize marijuana were going to take giant steps forward regarding all other drugs and that is going to be starting with looking at the drug issue first as a health issue rather than a criminal justice issue. >> let's get the police that on the streets enforcing real crime. the th
law school in three parts of yale law school on the supreme court for corporately no other law schools in the united states. [laughter] besides those two. it is a bizarre and unfortunate fact i think. but those are help interesting facts about the supreme court. but, frankly, i don't think they're very important. here's an important fact about the supreme court. there are five republicans and four democrats. i will speak for somewhat longer, but this is basically all you need to know. [laughter] if there's a take away here, i've gotten to the point early. there are five republicans and four democrats, and that really tells you much of what you need to know. and it is true that the justices wear robes because they're supposed to look all alike, and this was, you know, supposed to give the perception that they're all pretty much the same. but just as on the other side of first street, the united states congress is deeply divided, according to party, so was the united states supreme court. and this is a moment of real partisan division at the supreme court. and that is exemplified in case
violate, violates the regulations of international law on the principles of free trade, and raises questions about the legality and morality of such practices. based on this, we call for lifting the embargo imposed on cuba by the united states for decades. we also renew our call for lifting and stopping all unilateral coercive measures imposed on the peoples of other countries, such as venezuela, belarus, iran, syria and the democratic people's republic of korea. mr. president, our aspiration to achieve a positive reform of the international organization stems from our desire to find a world based on justice, security and prosperity for all the peoples of the world, away from the colonial tendencies -- hegemonic tendencies of some countries that seek to exploit the united nations to achieve their own interests at the expense of other countries. we hope that the united nations can take the people of the world to a better future that fulfills their aspirations for life, coexistence, development and food sufficiency, and away from all forms of tension, confrontation and wars, pursuant
of the court to say what will law is and that was an expression of his understanding that the power of the judicial review is inherent in our constitutional system and that wasn't self-evident at all. so that is the power of jurisdiction, limits on jurisdiction that somebody has to have a standing at one its jurisdiction. that's another thing the court basically made up. other courts won't necessarily have that. a few years ago to give very interesting kind of judicial trip to south africa which is a fabulous constitution, modern constitution and a wonderful supreme court. the south african constitution gives people all kinds of positive rights of the right to housing and education and a right to health and its job and all this. our constitution of course doesn't. our constitution is of - rights, the government shall not in the bill of rights the government shall not. it's against the power of the government. south africa constantly rights they have no limit the supreme court has no limitation on jurisdiction. somebody can come into court and say the constitution promises me a job a
that gap. there are six product of harvard law school and three products at yale on the supreme court. there are apparently no other law schools in the united states besides those two. it is a bizarre and unfortunate fact i think actually. but those are i hope interesting facts about the supreme court. but frankly i don't think that they are very important. here is an important fact about the supreme court. there are five republicans and four democrats. i will speak for somewhat longer. but this is basically all you need to know. if there is a takeaway i've gotten to the point earlier there are five republicans and four democrats and that tells you much of what you need to know. it is true the justices where the roads because they are supposed to look alike and it's supposed to give the perception that they are all pretty much the same. but just as the united states congress is a deeply divided according to the party, so is the united states supreme court, and this is a moment of partisan division at the supreme court, and of that is exemplified in case after case. why this is of impo
surveillance by the federal government and they are challenging the law that allows electronic surveillance, this wiretapping because they're concerned that their case will be picked up. they're claiming to have standing to challenge this law because even though the surveillance might be directed overseas to people they're talking to get their dedication will get picked up in the course of that surveillance and so therefore they have the right to challenge it in court. that is the standing issue we we are dealing with. just to get to the merits for a minute, and the aftermath of the exposÉ in the mid-70's about various abuses in the intelligence community and in short in short is set up a system by which the executive branch would have to go to the court surveillance court here in d.c. and get permission when they wanted to do wiretapping for national security purpose to give sworn intelligence information. this is way of making sure that the court, there was a court that had to check and had a role in reviewing the government's effort to do this wiretapping which they ended up using in in
of the university of michigan law school. different years. larry is older than i am. and is a little bit younger, but the three of us all graduated from law school. now one of us has been invited back to campus to speak. go figure. three nationally syndicated talk show hosts with a lot of audience and none of us have been invited back. every five years i invited back to harvard to be the person that this town. that the chief of staff and director of the peace corps and communications director. duval patrick is the governor of massachusetts. grover norquist. it's like groundhog day every side -- every five years before us identify our class. we have the only two conservatives the gun and of harvard. the rest of us just throw things at us. it's always amusing commute the series is very good. come back in november bummer doing when it -- william henry harrison. it's a very short program. you don't want to miss that one. and such a presidential merit i visited his tomb. his tomb is in a small town along the ohio river in southeastern ohio commanders as an eternal flame which may have been up for dec
signing statements, which i thought he was saying he did not have to obey the law, but what happened was, there was a legitimate, strong argument being made by the president's supporters in favor of why the president had the use statements to distance himself from legislation. there were also very strong arguments by people like me who says that that is unconstitutional. the american bar association appointed a task force to look into these findings and i was a member of that task force, and then the president of the aba and i testified before a house committee and, guess what? even though a good face was being made for the president to issue and sign the statements, not one single democrat, not one saw any merit in his argument. even though i thought and a lot of other people thought that what the president was doing was clearly unconstitutional, the president saying i don't have to obey the law that i just time, not one republican done anything wrong with it. on issue after issue, foreign policy or anything else, we divide into these parties. first of all, there is nothing in the const
, present and future of the nest its constitution. professor of law and political science at university. he teaches constitutional law at the college and law school. he received his b.a. and j.d. from yale and serves as an editor of the yale law journal. clerking for steven briar, he joined the faculty of yale in 1985. professor is co-editor of the leading constitutional law casebook, processes of the constitutional decision making and is the author of several of the books including the constitution in criminal procedure, the bill of rights creation and reconstruction, america's constitution and was really america's and written constitution, the precedents and principles will apply. the hon. clarence thomas has served as a justice of the supreme court for nearly 21 years. he attended seminary and received an ab from the college of the holy cross and j.d. from yale law school. serve as an assistant attorney general of missouri from 1974 to 1977. legislative assistant to senator john denver from 1979 to 81. from 81-82 he served as assistant secretary for civil rights in the u.s. department of
to have this opportunity to talk to someone or some public health, law enforcement, industry and government about this pressing and really important public health challenge. and i want to offer an update on the progress that would make sense unless lesser which already was two years ago, which i don't know where the time goes. but we have been busy and have improved our strategies and our engagement to address the increasingly complex supply chain that we now regulate. then i want to tell you about be safe rx, know your online pharmacy which is our new national campaign that you've heard a little bit about, and it's designed to educate consumers who purchase medications over the internet. president kennedy like to say we must think and act not only for the moment but for our time. and the 21st century is really our time. and as i've also suggested and we are seeking to address a serious and far-reaching problem. one that sadly is growing, and one that is very real consequences now and for the future. we need to work together on effective and sustainable strategies that will e
all the decisions about their salaries, benefits, work worlds and they have laws and regulations that govern themselves. and if these politicians don't perform guess what? they throw them out and put their money behind somebody else. these unions will do anything in their power to elect politicians who will serve their interests. they will spend hundreds of millions of dollars, even billions of their members dues on politics. they will send an political and political ground troops which they will include paid volunteers to get out the vote. they will form alliances and donate to leftist organizations who will support a pro-union agenda or go money flows my friends from government employee unions to politicians back to the same unions in a never-ending cycle of greed and corruption. politicians know that union money will cycle back to them in return for their pro-union votes and if they cross those unions, the unions will throw them right out of office. unions reward their friends and punish their enemies very effectively. and the amount of money they can bring to bear as neighbor
make about the same. first year associates in law firms make about the same. the women on average choose to work fewer hours than men. full-time is about 35 hours a week. and women work about. many women go in and out of the work force as they have children. and that on average reduces their average earnings. but it doesn't mean they're discriminated against. it doesn't mean that if you take two women and two men in the same job they don't end the same. they do. >> what is the paycheck fairness act, do you think it's necessary. >> the paycheck fairness act was up again voting in congress. it failed. there was a failed when -- it would require firms to report to the government the women they have on their payroll, the men they have on the payroll, how much they pay both groups, that's an attempt of the government to troy to equalize pay between groups of men and women. rather than as the law holds right now men and women in the come rabble job. they try to set equal pay for equal. which are two different things. there's no reason why groups of women and groups of men in the same fi
. >> primarily senator old ridge was the only one not a banker. he was spearheading. >> the father-in-law to john rockefeller. >> he is tied in closely with the banking industry and the industrial complex. a wealthy guy in his own right. probably the most political figure in the united states short of the president who was wood row will sob in those days. the rest guys are bankers and they represented the din city of jpmorgan and the rockefeller dynasty. they had connections. they were connectioned to the roth childs in england. and max there. there was. he had connections to the brother max who was the head of the banks that banking consortium in germany and the nether land. we have a international group here, really. representing international people. and it was the e peed my of the bad bankers of the world theeps were quites. what happened is they knew that there was going to be a move to control banking. they knew that congress was going to pass some kind of haw to regulate banking. instead of being stupid and sitting back and saying i hope they don't too bad. they decided to take the lead. t
's always problems. i mean, as i tell my students in constitutional law, this country is a work in progress. sometimes the government's going to go too far, and we need to rein them in. i'm not in favor of excessive government involvement in my life. um, and sometimes private industry will go too far in terms of wanting to make it all about how much profit they make, and we'll rein them in because health care is not something that should be guided solely by the bottom line. so i think the government has a role, and i think we have to keep a catch -- watchdog, citizens' deal on how much of a role we give them. >> i would add to that that birth control access should be a nonpartisan issue. as many of you probably know, president nixon signed title x family planning funding into law. it was a republican value for lesser government intrusion in our lives and good fiscal conservativism. $1 invested saves $4 in unnecessary costs. and as we know today, social ideology is forcing some of our politicians to be more socially conservative than fiscally responsible. because they recognize this is just
information, is there -- one of the stipulations, and this is a sticking point, was what laws should be passed for sharing information, for protecting privacy and making sure industry isn't held liable for sharing information. about breaches that might have affected its customers. so if there's no legislation, what can agencies still do? where can they improve and trying to share information? >> currently secretary napolitano has the authority under the protection of critical infrastructure information, but a company can voluntarily submit information and they cannot be exposed to foia. it cannot be exposed to regulatory requests. and that data can be protected by, under the secretary's current authorities, and enable government to work with industry to address risk, to create actionable information which we refer to as actionable intelligence so that owners and operas can take the national -- the necessary steps. it can be derived from classified sources. it can be provided by private sector but it can be provided by other departments and agencies. so that currently exist. expanding the aware
law baseline, and cbo analyzes that. cbo talked about how going over the fiscal cliff at the end of this year would bring us back -- likely bring us back into recession, but they also talked about how the fiscal cliff later in the ten year window would cause higher economic growth. i think that's very important to hold on to because we have been in the habit of kicking the fiscal can down the road. they all happen to land in front of us, and i'm here today to say we shouldn't just kick the can down the road again. we shouldn't even try to substitute the fiscal can with the grand bargain like simpson-bowles simply because it is too hard for us. i know we can't do that. i'm proposing instead of, and i'm proposing, not congress, i'm proposing that instead of substituting the fiscal cliff or ignoring it, that we recycle those fiscal cans. we can't kick it, but we have to recycle it. there's the notion, all the fiscal cans representing certain policies that we were willing to commit to in the past that legislators past, committing to the tax bush cuts expiring at the end of 2010 and 2
in the united states they have to meet the requirements of many different countries laws, and sometimes it is difficult to become a supplier to a high brand-name a anchor tenant because they don't want to have their brand integrity challenge door product challenge and they are trying to deliver the best product at the best point possible to get more market share and global dominance. so when we talk of a trusted suppliers that one set of suppliers and that's another set of getting into the to process these are both very important. >> dennis was speaking from mississippi in case you couldn't tell from my accent. when you're eating cat fish you don't know if it came from the delta or the vietnam. the food source is truly global but with extending that to deny what you just a little bit further we do have the food and drug administration, the united states department of agriculture regulations, and so to extend your analogy is there a role for regulation in cyberspace? what are the proper roles as melissa mentioned the policy levers to read this is to each of the panelists. >> as i said at
that has become a hobby of mine and will be the brunt of a course in the fall in harvard law school is every student particularly at our so-called elite was schools which would lead students graduates to believe there's only one constitution in the entire united states to realize federal defaults that each stage has the constitution and one discovers contrary to the bad recruit at stake constitutions have, and remarkably interesting. and without exception more democratic than the united states constitution. there's a controversy among political scientists about the degree to which the united states constitution is continuing to serve as a model, what i find much more telling is the united states constitution, a remarkable and relatively non examined degree did not serve as a model for the state constitutions that were drafted in this country beginning around the turn of the nineteenth century. if you look at various new york constitutions and other constitutions you find dramatic differences. the new york constitution of 1846 for better or worse and when talking about constitutional
. mississippi paid 11% of the poverty line, but legally obligated to get under federal law to make welfare available to people who came and applied for it. what's happened? well, let me tell you what's happened in this recession. it's really astone -- astonishing. food stamps was at 26 million people in 2007, 26.3 million. in the last five years, that's gone up to 46 million people. in other words, food stamps works. that's why mrs. gingrich called president obama the food stamp president because we had a program working to help people in the recession. he is the food stamp president, that's great. although, and food stamps were raised in the recovery act, the stimulus legislation, and that was a very, very good thing. now, why did they go up? because people had a legal right to get that when they went into the office to apply, had to be done. welfare, now temporary assistance for needy families, tanf, no longer a legal right. go in, you look healthy, you look like you can work, they can say whatever they want, there'si no obligation to do that. in the recession, tanf went up from 3.9 mill
this matrix of election laws and systems and regulations shape who gets elected and the policy in the country and they determine or shape the level of mercury in the air that we brief, how many kids are in a classroom in the city of detroit, so they have a huge impact the we don't always appreciate. >> explain how that matrix works. where do they start and how far do they go? >> one unique thing about the united states is that we don't have a central system in terms of the election. we have got over 4,000 difrent election systems and the of different rules and laws and people who administer them said there isn't like one puppet master like some grand conspiracy. we've got all these different systems and the people that are familiar with the most common example of this which would be gerrymandering where politicians draw districts that favor them. congress is about a 14 or 15% approval rating or maybe even lower than that. yet 85% of members of congress are safe because they have drawn their districts or state legislatures have drawn their districts so that those members are safe so that is th
about it and actually solve the national security and law enforcement challenge of a border that is not secure. and number two, we need to remain in nation that not just welcomes, but celebrates legal immigrants. americans by choice is what ronald reagan described. our great strength as a nation is that all of us, our ancestors, came from all of real-world seeking freedom and opportunity and we need to remain a nation that celebrates immigrants and secure our border and gets serious about stopping the problem. >> yet that same president coming in 1986 and instituted a program that was effectively, if not literally, amnesty, which has been criticized by members of your party for opening the floodgates. >> i don't think amnesty is the right approach could i don't think that most texans or most americans support it. i think amnesty is unfair to the millions of legal immigrants to wait years and sometimes the kids in line to come here legally. to reward those who broke the law is fundamentally wrong. >> we know the president put into effect prosecutorial discretion, and wait to
't track is right. is opposed to comprehension immigration reform. he's in favor of the arizona law that most was declared unconstitutional by the united states senate -- by the united states supreme court. my opponent thought the arizona law was so good he wanted to bring a tear to nevada, but the one thing, the one thing that i can't believe he is opposed is the d.r.e.a.m. act. and he voted against it. not 80%, not 20%. he voted against 100% of the. what does the d.r.e.a.m. act said? it says if you're a youngster that has come to the united states through no fault of your own and you're in college or you volunteer for our military, you should have a pass to legal status. it couldn't be any more simple than that, and my opponent voted against it and the also come he's on record saying if he remains into united states senate he's going to vote against it again. the latino families in the state and in this country deserve to have that dream act passed. deserve comprehension immigration reform, you crack down on employers that knowingly hire undocumented workers, and then you give peo
to apply the law. and if you do that in this case, there is no reasonable justification for a continuation of the exclusivity ban. so i think, i think the chairman's order as you describe it, um, is the appropriate course of action to take. um, you know, are -- and that's been comcast's position in the proceeding. um, life is long. as you note, our order lasts until 2018. and so for whatever it applies to over that period of time, it applies to. but after that period of time, we should be treated like everybody else, um, and, again, if people believe that it is appropriate for the exclusivity ban to continue, they need to go back to congress and to get different legislation than the legislation that exists now. because the current legislation simply does not support the exclusivity ban and the current competitive posture of the marketplace. >> so what happens when october 5th rolls around and it expires presumably? do we suddenly see several exclusive contracts out there? >> guest: i don't think so. i think the fears there have been overstated, but i obviously don't know for sure. i think
but it doesn't come its impact on the judicial system and how the courts will actually apply the law, you know, for companies who actually decide this is going to invest in such country because the labor market is more flexible, maybe they're going to wait until they see whether the judicial system embarks on the same process and will not have very stringent case load, which will counterbalance the positive effects of the legislative reform. >> when you see medium-term, do you mean two years, three years, five years of? >> yes, i was a two, three years years. >> okay, next. >> barbara matthews. thank you, madam lagarde, for an excellent presentation and going to go back to the question that jacob asked because there was another component that i think i and others might really appreciate the institute. you have made a robust case for program extension due to external, say exceptional circumstances or to ensure that program remains viable. and you've also stated today, to ago in cyprus we have to talk about the financing purchase program extension. usually that means haircuts, including for offi
constitution. body of law that was agreed to by the representatives of all our states. so i believe institution building starts with the law. it starts with the law of the constitution and laws that come from those constitutions. and with a solid body of law, then you can start to build legislatures, courts, and the rest. i'll never forget a conversation i once had when the cold war was ending, the famous russian ambassador, we were in moscow, at the kgb hotel in moscow, a lovely place. anyway, we were having dinner and he was talking about gorbachev, the only microphones in the room was his and he was able to be candid. and so he said colin, you don't know what he's doing. he's making us crazy. i said how was he making you crazy? he is saying, remora gorbachev was a lawyer, he is saying that we have to put the society of this country on the basis of law. if it isn't on the basis of law, then it is always up to the bureaucrats who can issue that cuts. so his goal is to put the soviet union if he could've kept it on th basis of law, and when the soviet union ended and we started rushing in to as
or ask not your resource, rule of law, flexible labor and capital markets, and so much else. dust, -- that's there are immediate hardships to be addressed. we are well-positioned to succeed for the transforming global economy. however realizing that potential requires sound fiscal conditions instead of the current unsustainable and dangers fiscal trajectory, strong public investment in areas critical to economic success, and reform in non-budgetary areas such as health care, energy, immigration, k-12 education, and so much else. there are, as you know, enormous policy differences in all of these areas, but substantively they could be bridged to move forward effectively in each area. however, that will only happen if our elected officials are in the final analysis committed to effective governance. and that means working across party lines, different opinions, to make lyrically tough decisions. and that takes us to today's program. any strategy for the long-term success of the american economy must focus on k-12 education in today's highly competitive global economy. there's an eno
to respect international law. we probably violated the sovereignty with drones and covert action than we did under brush and there's a whole new set of questions there. i could -- the list could go on it seems like we have problems with the institution and we have problems with our ability to lead within the institution. i was wondering what your reaction to one or both of the issues. one is a generally statement. i agree with the ideas to win. you know, the power the soviet unions were strong. when the soviet union was strong and the idea of liberal internationalism will be strong as we can prove by example. the world of social networking which is the em emulation is hugely a powerful force in the world. .. and the whole number of rather meaningful things are done. the international criminal court . the key of the treaty. the land that -- antipersonnel landmines ban, small arms agreement. all of them were done with the u.s. voting exam. and the votes were like 178 to one and one pattern 46 with 18. those kinds of votes. in the u.s. was the only democracy with the exception of an drolen tip
-year associates and law firms make about the same. but women on average choose to work fewer hours than men, even when they work full-time. full-time is anything about 35 hours a week. women work about 12% fewer hours. about 25% work in and out of the workforce as they have children. that, on average, would beat the average earnings. but it doesn't mean that they are discriminated against or that if you take two women and two men in the same job, they don't match up. >> host: what is the paycheck fairness act? >> guest: the paycheck fairness act failed. it also failed when there was a democratic house, senate, and president. barack obama himself said that it would require us to report to the government, the women they have on the payroll, the men they have on the payroll, how much they paid those groups, and that is an attempt of the government to try to equalize pay between groups of women and groups of men. rather than, as well all holds right now, men and women in comparable jobs in the same jobs. so what they are trying to do is have people pay for equal work, not equal pay to equal work, whi
has just enumerated, but also because the world has changed around us. in part because the laws our policy. we spent an awful lot of time, effort and money after world war ii creating an international system, economic system in particular to stimulate the growth in the rest of the world. so, this is the success of the policy of several decades that has made us relatively less strong in terms of disposable cash and disposable incentives to get to the behavior that we want to see. militarily, we surely are as strong as we have ever been, but we live in a world that has a number of nuclear powers and we still live in the world before 1957 that had not. so, other than us. you know, to me it hardly even seems worth debating this is a different world. >> i was told we have to debate. [inaudible] the decline is the wrong word. i think the world is getting more crowded. they are growing faster and in economic terms the u.s. will have the west shared wealth for the years ahead but there isn't a country by the way that is as jessica said that is a story of american success. it's for 60 years
's assume a new set of laws is passed. as quickly as they are passed, election lawyers figure out how to get around them. it is remarkable. it's constantly evolve issue. would i support moving the money back to the candidates. absolutely. i think there has to be a mechanism i worked for two millionaire politicians. i believe there should be a mechanism for rank and file. to be able to raise larger amounts. but i believe putting the money back in the candidate account create more accountability and much more integrity driven process to frame an election. me personally yes. and, you know, does my firm make money off the kinds of campaign. absolutely. from my perspective i think it's better for the country if we went back to that model. >> can i answer? >> i don't know that i agree with the assumption of the question. if you look at what -- [inaudible] look at what super pac actually do and what the advertising does, everyone in here age lot of people in the political times remember the question in political times 101 should the elected representative do what he believes is right or what the co
to slave law that anyone in the know if, on the abolitionist lived, if anyone in the north was to aid or abet a fugitive slave, they themselves would be imprisoned or fined for breaking the law. this was a slave law by which a scene of a compromise between the north and south to war. so that was part of what the novel trying to do so, look, i made person and i'm against slavery as was most of them in the. and right to help a slave to find him or herself in our borders. we have the right to do that. we are not a slave state. we should be allowed to practice our laws as we see fit. >> more about harriet beecher stowe this weekend as booktv american history tv and c-span local content vehicles look behind the scenes at the history and literary life of a test domain saturday noon at booktv, and sunday at 5 p.m. on american history tv on c-span3. >> you're watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs we case featuring live coverage of the u.s. senate. on weeknights watch key public policy events. and every week and the latest nonfiction authors and books on booktv. you can see past pr
it for that purpose. doing this is a way of achieving kind of, sticking to the current law baseline paths of revenue and spending. not necessarily in the exact timing or form that the current law baseline looks right now but sticking with the essential elements. so those of you who know me know that i obsessed over the current law baseline. i'm quite fond of it and in the past i said what we need to do is follow strict pay as you go. i'm tired of this exempting this, ignoring that. let's stick to strict pay as you go. the next time we kick the can down the road we have to commit to paygo and no exceptions. i will modify that today. instead of paygo it is rego. recycle as you go. use every bit of essential elements but keep moving forward. set targets thaw achieve that congress will by x date, use y percent of the cans that we've kicked down the road. in terms of achieving the same amount of deficit reduction over the 10-year window. just use the budge -- budget committees and budge budget process to enforce this. to come up with reforms that achieve certain spending or revenue targets. the tpc's ana
are no longer eligible for the tax status. but 49 percent is not found in a law or regulation. it has simply been sort of rule of thumb for the agency. but to the irs, as anybody knows who has followed these groups, has not been very active in this area. so this is a problem yet unsolved. >> i will ask gary take you up the video because i want to play just the beginning of it that illustrate what we see as a problem in the way it was journalism is a covering the explosion of money. grease a story that could crush tries to say their is a lot of money here it and tries to report on finding secrets . in order to illustrate it runs the ads full screen and essentially journalism in that story ostensibly about money is magnifying the deceptive power of the ads. if you can take it back to the beginning of that video, i don't know if you can't, we have done an experiment to find out what is the difference between the story that is running with the ads all but full screen in the background and the story when you put a multiple matrix of. you put nine or ten screens of adds up as you air the same stor
'm a democrat with islamic preference and at the same time trying to promote rule of law within the country to work against corruption and transparency and respecting the constitution and the laws that were implemented and being very successful on the economic side. no one today is talking about islamists implementing cheri. .. >> what we face in the west now, we know this as citizens. i live in euro, you live in the united states of america, and we know the problem with the democracies now is not the dogmatic decisions of religions, but some decisions of frans national cooperation and economy power deciding without being able to say anything and we cull it democracy, still today dealing with power that are beyond the procedure. the banks, transnational cooperation, and, for example, in greece, in spain, in italy, we have those coming to solve the problem we never elected them, but money is choosing them. we have to deal with not simplistic answer when it comes to separate religion from states, what do you have? directing the state or imposing decision on to the state which is also imposing
now of the right is because of a law for the greece, under greek law, whatever party comes in first, i will take a step back. it has proportional representation. that the reserves a rule of comment. you should have the same percentage of delegates in congress that write the law. 18% of the people while party a, and it will come to deciding what laws get passed. they will effectively screwed that in which you would think of the idea. in european countries, we have torsional representation. you get a cut off of 5%. that is how many seats that you get. if you get 51% of the vote, you get it all and the 49% worked. by the way, we have had proportional representation in the united states in the past, and even have it now. when you read about a primary and the vote in some states, and candidate a gets another delegate conventions, that is a proportional representation and they get an equal number of delegates than what they got out of the vote. we actually recognize in the united states proportional representation, we just don't allow these days. one of the reasons for that, if i can be allo
the law. um, and if you do that in this case, there is no reasonable justification for a continuation of the exclusivity ban. so i think, i think the chairman's order, um, as you describe it, um, is the appropriate course of action to take. um, you know, are -- and that's been comcast's position in the proceeding. um, life is long. as you note, our order lasts until 2018. um, and so for whatever it applies to over that period of time, it applies to. but after that period of time we should be treated like everybody else, um, and again if, um, if people believe that it is appropriate for the exclusivity ban to continue, they need to go back to congress and to get different legislation than the legislation that exists now. because the current legislation simply does not support the exclusivity ban in the current competitive positive -- posture of the marketplace. >> what happens when october 5th rolls around and it expires? do we suddenly see several exclusive contracts out there? >> guest: i don't think so. i think the fears have been overstated. i think that the marketplace now is such
patients, to advocate for patients, and through tough law enforcement to protect patients. the partnership for safe medicines has been a steadfast and consistent voice towards these goals. in doing so, you felt the american people be safe from products that are sold as legitimate medicines that heal, but are far more likely to be dangerous. for batch of my deep appreciation and commitment, we must continue to work together. we must build on the successes that we've already achieved together, and we must continue to put the safety and health of the public as our first and foremost priority. so thank you for your time and for all the good work that all of you do, from the various positions you hold, and your commitment to this critical public health concern. thank you so much. [applause] >> this is the first book i've written where there's an actual same storyline running through it. it's a true story of about basically 10 days of london in 1854. it's a story of an incredibly terrifying outbreak that took place during this period, an outbreak of cholera. the first half of the book is really
with the blueprint, which chairman mica mentioned. many of the things in the bill signed into law came from secretary lahood so it is worth noting that much progress has been made since that day. i remember he came to see me and he said, what are the challenges of deviation? i said you have to do two things then you have to do them quickly. one of the things is you have to free up this mentality that we do not want stakeholders involved that we don't want to hear from them. so to his credit and the credit of the former administrator, mr. babbitt and the acting administrator here today, we have made progress. we have a long way to go, but we've come a long way from a few years ago. so with that, mr. chairman, thank you. >> i must say currently the internal management competence in this sort of process, due in part to people here are the fad of work is a couple years ago. this is a different type of process and takes a different type of experience. we thank you for your testimony and the first panel is adjourned. we will turn to the second panel and as they are coming forward, let me introduce them. it
to focus on the constitution and the rule of law because the legal framework is such that women are protected in the constitution in terms of their right. any move away from the rule of law, where trade was just as our ad hoc justices applied is bad for women. we have seen that in parts of afghanistan. the reality is that it's going to be pretty difficult for women in hearts of afghanistan because as you see in pakistan, pakistan does have the rule of law, an institution, but in the remote parts you can't always enforce it. and that is going to be the reality for a lot of women in parts of afghanistan. and i think we are pretty powerless to do much about that. but what we can try and do is try and make sure that women's rights are enshrined in the comp duchenne for interrogation from that and influence. we can use our influence because if we found the afghans come obvious they were going to make it conditional on things like corruption and human rights, on how women are treated. so we have this going to give the minister of finance to do the right thing. so i think we should use
spying. you have the law of the land in the united states. for the chinese, it is an attractive alternative. when you are on the other side of the trade and you know your competitor or the person you buy something from us under pressure financially, you should hold the card and send a card. so you just don't want to get to a point where the chinese say, look, we will do this, but we want much higher interest rates. so that is when race could spike, really impact the economy, be much costlier for average folks because rates will follow suit and will see a spiraling out of control now. so that is why you just don't want to have some other player having cars like that. in addition, you need economic growth in terms of raising revenue before this country. we are seeing growth contracts. that's okay, but it's just okay. it is not where we should meet in this kind of recovery, at this moment in the recovery based on typical recovery. next year as a result of going over the fiscal cliff and that of course is the expiration of the tax cuts to the spending programs for the most economist
left behind. it is a joy to work on. we want congress to fix the law in a bipartisan way. is broken in many ways. actually in keating progress, stifling creativity and 33 states and another dozen working through the process. they're showing great courage moving away from focus on one test score but looking at growth and what is doing improvement and looking at other metrics. graduation rates going up. dropout rates going down. high school graduates college ready. actually going to college. are they persevering? some folks argue this is more complicated. it is more complex but much more holistic and comprehensive. a 50% dropout rate is not changing students' lives. looking at long-term outcome is a step in the right direction. under no child left behind a little technical but in many schools it is pretty high. many poor children and minority children and english-language learners were not part of the accountability system. they were invisible under that. states like wisconsin or north carolina 15,000 or 20,000 additional children the state is held accountable for their results. that
public thank you to the experience. his entire place is that the law professors like turn, the committee table in the illinois statehouse during various meetings, but he's never the guy in the front of the room deciding, making the hard calls. he is various little management experience, suddenly he's in the most managerial job in the world. president of the united states, these are the free world is my question was how does he do it? odyssey make decisions? how does a cover? that's interesting too, but what is his leadership style? when i looked around for books about to dismiss the serious and sustained weight. >> you see this as a campaign document coming up close to the november election? >> guest: well, publishers do like the time for it when attention. most americans tune into politics around election time. that is more or less a happy accident. >> host: one of the things that surprised me and the surprise a lot of the leaders is all of your sources are democrats. this is a very critical study, get all of your sources were democrats. >> guest: some of the sources i don't know the po
. not all of them, but found that i have heard speak because politics has changed the law in the last even 30 years, where now the media and people who are running everything is so polarized and i feel like another kind of that divide also created is a lot of people like if you're into business, you're dramatically like a republican or something like that. or if you are not into business, then you're just completely to the other side. i feel that you shouldn't have to be like that. if you want to start your own business, you can be a democrat, whatever. there's just a lot of unneeded social pressure in that aspect. >> god bless the american businessman. i am for the henry ford who at their own money built up a producing company and by the way doubled the pay of the workers because it occurred to him, hey, maybe it's my own workers can afford to buy the product they make, i will make my products. a lot of people laugh over engine charlie wilson who is the secretary of defense under eisenhower. they always mangled the quote. they say what is good for general motors is good for america. now,
are presented and what are you obligated to say when you are pinned down? do you believe in enforcing these laws that seem problematic or not? the whole idea of which are in fact, the whole concept is welcome that these are the good case. the thing is i think they're right, it doesn't mean that you're a bad kid if you're not an community college or maybe you got in trouble in your teenager, it doesn't make you a bad person. there's something very disingenuous, but that's because advocates want to structure in a certain way. i don't know how much of this is rooted in many believe prior to the way the reaction to structure the conversation. i do think advocates have structured the conversation advantageously, which is their job. >> thank you. >> just a couple more questions are never going to have to cut it off. so maybe back there and also to your right. >> hi, terry watkins. i was wondering if you could all just the millennialist, especially looking forward in terms of democratic party strained. >> also the gentleman over there. >> tanks a lot. thanks for the forum today to the panelists. mr. br
and verse on international law. all i know is this. that he was an american citizens. but he also insighted terrorism against every other american. he was part of a terrorist group that would destroy american life and inflict terrorist attacks on the country. if that's the way he was, that's who he was. i think our government had a right go after to him. as to the son, i can't speak to the details of what happened because i don't know. i'm a private citizens. i don't have any special knowledge of what happened on the attack. but, you know, terrorist put themselves on the line, if they impose our country, that they seek to destroy our country. i think we have an only division to go after them. i think president obama has been right to wage the very tough campaign against al qaeda. al qaeda is an and my of the united states and all of us know that after 9/11. >> host: i want to get more of your take on syria. they pointed a world leader clash over the syria. they point out the sharp differences on how the end the civil war service. one arab ruler urged total support for the rebels soon after
know, martin luther king said the moral law of the universe bends slowly, but it bends towards justice. eng there was a bending towards justice. there are things wrong with the health care bill, but you know what johnson would have said? he said that about the civil rights bill, a flawed bill. he said the important thing is to pass it. once you pass it, it's easy to go back and fix it. >> host: next caller from georgia. good morning to you. >> caller: good morning. thank you for the distinguished work for us all. >> guest: thank you. >> caller: yes. i wonder if you came across things in your research that suggested president johnson experienced moral compunction about the behavior at some point. it's striking he's so on the spot with the angels with civil rights and other important issues, but so unscrupulous in accomplishing those wonderful goalsment thank you. >> guest: well, that's another really terrific question. you are talking about ends and means. the ends is noble. medicare, lyndon johnson said it's the job of government to take care of the bent and the ill. the bent means the
journal" tomorrow morning, we'll examine the health care law that presidential candidate mitt romney signed into law when he was governor of massachusetts. our guest is boston herald reporter christine mcconnell. we'll be joined by howard kertz and lauren ashburn of the daily download to look at the use of social media in the presidential campaign. and we'll discuss the college board's recent report on how high school students are doing on the s.a.t.s. our guest is college board vice president james montoya. washington journal journal is live on c-span every day at 7 a.m. eastern. >>> tuesday the new america foundation looks at the role of money in the 2012 elections. panelists include former sec chairman trevor potter. live coverage starting at 12:15 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> every generation through our history has worked and sacrificed to leave a better country to their children, their grandchildren and future generations. we're spending their money, we are now even more, much more spending their money, and we are leaving them a mess that will be a very difficult to deal with, a
loyalty and dedication to the common cause courses through the brain of law and nobody feels left out. it was a vision of britain coming together to overcome the challenges we face. it's really called that one nation -- one nation. we heard the phrase again as the country came together to defeat fascism and we heard it again as clement attlee builds britain after the war. [applause] friends, i didn't become leader of the labour party to reinvent the world of 73 or attlee. i believe in that spirit, one nation, a country where everyone has the day. one nation can make an issue where prosperity fairly shared. one nation where we have a shared destiny, a sense of shared and other and a common life that we laid together. that is my vision of one nation. that is my vision of written. that is the britain we must become. [applause] in here is the genius of one nation. it doesn't just tell us the country we can be. it tells us how we can rebuild. we won the war because we were one nation. we built the peace because labour government and conservative government under said we needed to be one na
to aid or abet a fugitive slave, they themselves would be imprisoned or fined for breaking the law. it was seen as a compromise from the north to avoid war. so that was part of what the novel was trying to do, was to say listen, i am a person, harriet beecher stowe, as was most of new england. i am a slave to find spammers herself and her border. we have a right to do that. we are not delayed. >> house has done better than the senate or the obama administration making its proceedings more transparent to the public online. that is according to participants of a semi-foundation for an in washington d.c. the group also discussed the fact that lawmakers not only read the legislation of full before voting on it. this is 90 minutes. >> welcome. my name is daniel schuman, director of the advising committee and transparency. today's discussion is going to focus on whether congress is serious about transparency. we are going to beat the one 112 congress and also identify some of the deficits. we are going to do my speaking portion very quickly because it's really interesting is of course a
violation of what the intent of -- not the campaign finance law by the textile of what 501(c)(4)'s were supposed to be. spent i think it really is complicated. i had an interviewer reporting to me how i start talking a 501(c)(4) in the start menu set my personal goal is never to mention the phrase 501(c)(4) in my article. that's why stephen colbert was so good. he could managed to distill all this in the four minutes and try to explain why you should care. [inaudible] >> stephen colbert -- [inaudible] thank you for coming, and come up and asked for follow-up questions later on. [applause] >> leading up to tonight's presidential debate, a panel of experts now with some of the leadership styles of president obama and republican presidential nominee made wrong. former presidential hopeful and utah governor jon huntsman, congressman bart gordon, and weekly standard editor william kristol among the speakers at this event, life here at the brookings institution. it is just getting under way. >> leadership style and approach to management. so the questions we will be looking at today is how do
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 69